Home > Uncategorized > A Democratic Majority?

A Democratic Majority?

It’s tempting to post something about President Bush’s decision this week to drop “stay the course” from his rhetoric about Iraq, but you know, picking on Bush has become like shooting ducks in a barrel. What’s the point? Whether the Democrats win or lose, next month, this guy is a lame duck and we’re just hobbling along until 2008 when someone new comes in to begin cleaning up the mess. Pick a group: the media, our allies, even Republicans — they’re all turning against Bush. We will probably lose 100 American soldiers this month alone. For what I ask you, for what?

Meanwhile, the Democrats are beginning to act like they smell victory in the air. Perhaps. They may be over confident and Karl Rove may have one last hurrah, yet, but assuming current polls are correct, the Democrats have something to cheer about.

But do we? I mean, does it really matter? What difference does it make if the Democrats take over Congress.

Here’s what the AP is reporting today:

“Democrats say they will burst out of a 12-year exile with a bang if they win control of Congress in two weeks. They promise to quickly pass a minimum wage increase at home and to reduce the U.S. war role in Iraq.

Made-for-televison hearings would focus on faulty intelligence used to justify the invasion of Iraq, strategic and tactical missteps once there and the sending of troops into combat with insufficient armor, the Democrats say.

From the helm of the House Armed Services committee, they would press for an almost immediate troop drawdown. They also would try to switch the U.S. from a major role in Iraq to a supporting one — counterterrorism and logistical tasks rather than patrols of the streets of Baghdad.”

So what do you think? Will a Democratic majority change anything in this country, or is it all hopeless because there’s really no difference between the two?

Advertisements
  1. REDLEG
    October 24, 2006 at 9:51 am

    Because both parties have become almost (and I emphasize almost) indistinguishable I made the decision to renounce my party (Republican) a few years ago. It was a difficult choice but I could no longer accept the direction it was taking this country. But I could never embrace the Democratic party either. Both parties embraced the fringe groups and left their core constituency behind. The Left embraced groups and ideas that were not in sink with our culture and engaged in social engineering at various levels. That would explain the rise of the Right. You could argue skewed election numbers until you’re blue in the face, but I honestly believe that Americans became disenchanted with the Left.

    However, are the Republicans any better? The answer is…no. Their fringe group were the Neocons and Ayn Rand (Objectivist philosophy) inspired drivel. The attempted to take America back down the road of laizze-faire capitalism, we rejected as a nation, proved to be unpalatable to us in the long run.

    We as Americans are not geared towards embracing the welfare state. Yet, we cannot perceive ourselves as running rough shod over the disenfranchised.

    I sincerly believe that we as a nation (politics aside) are inherently good. However, the imbeciles, that are our elected representatives, have failed miserably in expressingthis to the world.

  2. Ponytail Bob in Los Osos
    October 24, 2006 at 3:24 pm

    Nancy Pelosi should first go for a hefty tax increase, get lawyers for all the innocent bystanders at gitmo, dump the patriot act, force a gay “marriage” law through and make John Murtha the secretary of defense, then have a nice lunch.

  3. Rich from Paso
    October 24, 2006 at 11:20 pm

    As I stated earlier, this will be a lame duck Congress the very first day if the Democrats take control. Bush will break out the veto pen early and often. How do I know this? Because the reason why he has only vetoed one piece of legislation is that 1) he is unwilling to veto and make the party look bad, or 2) has only one objectional item in the bill. But he is willing to veto if the bill goes against his core principles, and believe me that staying in Iraq and his tax cuts are very much a part of his core beliefs. If the Democrats fail to win the Senate, you can believe that there will be filibusters on both sides of the aisle on a wide variety of issues. The return of Gridlock will herald the defeat of the Democrats in 2008 election as a “do-nothing” Congress.

    But what if the Democrats tie with the Republicans, again? There will be enough wrangling and posturing to beat the band prior to January. Are the Democrats going to be fool enough to demand “power sharing” and are the Republicans going to be fool enough to give it to them like in 2000? The ONLY reason why Democrats had any “power sharing” in the Senate was because of of “Jumpin” Jim Jeffords and the Florida recount. Neither of those cases exist today.

    I encourage every Democrat to hold their breathe for a Democrat majority on November 8th. It will be only way you Democrats will get to a “blue state” in this lifetime.

  4. Bob from San Luis
    October 25, 2006 at 5:18 am

    Rich: Sorry, but I can’t resist; if Democrats holding our breath is the only way for us to obtain a “blue state”, would your method of maintaining a “red state” be from the embarrassment for all of the convictions, resignations and reports of perversions by elected Republicans?
    Rich, you mentioned that candidate Beery was calling for immediate impeachment for President Bush and how that was indicative of the mindset of the Democrats; Ms. Beery was a Republican up until a few years ago and as many who change their system of beliefs will go somewhat overboard, like a smoker who gives it up will be the most vocal about others who continue to smoke. My point here is that if Ms. Beery is elected, she will be a freshman Congressional Representative and if the Democrats do take the majority of the House of Representatives, the senior level of Democrats will be the ones making the decisions about policy and legislation. You yourself some time ago on this blog stated that you would be comfortable with investigating if there was any evidence that could be grounds for impeachment. I don’t think the leaders of the Democratic Party will push for impeachment unless they really believe that there are serious grounds for impeachment and if there is a majority in the Senate where a trial of the President would happen if the impeachment charges are drawn. I believe that a Democratic majority in the House would be very busy undoing many of what this do nothing Congress either has done to harm society at large (NCLB, Bankruptcy, Energy policy, etc., etc…) or has allowed to go unchecked (war profiteering, no oversight of executive branch). What those on the right fear from a Democratic led Congress is either a pandering to the extreme left which will result in legislative log jam due to vetoes from the President, or, more likely, the fear is that the Democrats will be effective, they will bring forth laws that make a real difference to the American public, not favoring the corporations, big business or those in the upper 1 or 2 percent of economic status. We’ll see.

  5. Rich from Paso
    October 25, 2006 at 5:41 am

    It is not possible for liberals to be effective because liberals spend all of their time in power paying back the favors they owe their kooky far left base. Democrats saying that they are not going to rush into impeachment hearing is a lie. EVERY Democrat has stated that Bush needs to be impeached. At least Beery is honest enough to publicly state that fact and run on it.

    Republican scandals are small compared to the genuine whoppers that Democrats do every day and just sweep them under the rug because they sit in the White House or are powerful senior memebers of Congress. The Democratic Party lost their shame and soul a long time ago. The differences are clear: Mark Foley (R) gets caught emailing and IM’ing a page and he resigns; Gary Studds (D) actual sodomizes an underage page and he is treated as a hero (three standing O’s during his speach). Bob Livingston resigns over infidelity and Bill Clinton uses his multiple infidelities to catapult himself to a position of lecturer-at-large for the country. Also, no Republican has ever killed anyone; Ted “Chappaquidick” Kennedy has. And the Democratic Party can boast the highest ranking member of the KKK is in their party. But seriously, the only people who will be embarassed are all you liberals when, come November 9th, you all find yourselves right where you left November 8th: in the minority. Only then you all will need the white jackets and padded rooms because you all will truly go insane with your Bush hatred.

    By the way, have you checked my blog out yet?

  6. Bob from San Luis
    October 25, 2006 at 8:48 am

    Rich: Yes, I did check out your blog. I usually have an hour or so a night to check out the web so I haven’t made time to sign up for a google i.d. to comment on your blog. Please imbed a link again for your blog and I will go there again.

  7. Rich from Paso
    October 25, 2006 at 2:16 pm

    Here it is again: What Right Looks Like

    Trust me, Bob, if you have the right idea on something, I will edit the original post to reflect it. I have to admit that I haven’t had the time to dedicate to it, since I write my own materical (Dave), so there are more ideas that as of yet have no9t made the blog.

  8. JerryDinAZ
    October 26, 2006 at 2:48 pm

    WHY WILL THE REPUBLICANS WILL WIN? READ ON!

    OUR DEFEATOCANT FRIENDS ARE OVER CONFIDENTLY COUNTING UP THE NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL SEATS THEY’RE GOING TO WIN IN THE ELECTION. I HATE TO DISAPPOINT THEM, BUT THE REPUBLICANS WILL WIN. DEMOCANTIC OVERCONFIDENCE — AS AMERICAN AS CHERRY PIE — HAPPENS EVERY ELECTION YEAR ABOUT NOW.

    FIRST,THE REPUBLICANS WILL WIN BECAUSE THEY ARE TOUGH AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE WEAK. THE AVERAGE AMERICAN DOES NOT CARE A HOOT ABOUT THE BILL OF RIGHTS, PRIVACY OR TORTURE. QUITE THE CONTRARY. TYPICAL AMERICANS ARE AFRAID OF TERRORISTS. HOW COULD THEY NOT BE WITH THE “WAR ON TERROR” CLICHÉ HEARD CONSTANTLY IN THE MEDIA AND EVERY DAY ON THE MOUTH OF THE PRESIDENT. THE PRESIDENT ALWAYS HAS BEEN TOUGH ON TERROR.. WHILE FOLKS DON’T LIKE THE WAR IN IRAQ ANYMORE, THEY HALF BELIEVE THE PRESIDENT IS TELLING THE TRUTH WHEN HE SAYS IT IS THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR.

    SECOND, THE REPUBLICANS ARE SMARTER. THEY’VE SPENT THE PAST YEAR AND A HALF RESEARCHING POTENTIAL OPPONENTS AND HAVE DEVELOPED SLOGANS AGAINST THEM TO WHICH THEY ARE UNABLE TO RESPOND EFFECTIVELY.

    THIRD, THE REPUBLICANS ARE RICHER. THEY HAVE PILED UP HOARDS OF CASH TO POUR INTO THE CLOSING DAYS OF THE CAMPAIGN TO FILL TV SCREENS WITH ADS. THEY WILL EMPHASIZE TOUGHNESS ON TERROR, WHICH THE REPUBLICANS HAVE MADE THE ISSUE OF THIS CAMPAIGN. THEY WILL EMPHASIZE THE FLABBY-MINDED LIBERALISM OF THEIR OPPONENTS, WHO ARE AS BAD AS THE TERRORISTS. HOW DO YOU ESTABLISH THAT YOU’RE NOT A FLABBY-MINDED LIBERAL? EASY! BECOME A REPUBLICAN!

    FOURTH, THE PUBLIC DOES NOT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE THAT THE WAR IS PRODUCING SWARMS OF NEW TERRORISTS ALL OVER THE WORLD. NOR DOES IT WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE DELICIOUS TIDBITS IN BOB WOODWARD’S NEW BOOK.

    FIFTH, THE VOTERS DON’T CARE ABOUT FOLEY’S FOLLY. THEY UNDERSTAND, AS THE LEFTY MEDIA PROPHETS DO NOT, THAT THE ONLY SEX SCANDALS THAT MATTER IN CONTEMPORARY POLITICS ARE DEMOCRATIC SCANDALS. IT MAY BE A SHAME, BUT THAT’S THE WAY THE RULES ARE WRITTEN. THE REPUBLICANS, MEMBERS OF GOD’S PARTY, ARE ALL GODLY MEN. ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM ARE THE RESULT OF DEMOCRATIC PRE-ELECTION LEAKS. BESIDES, AN “OVERLY FRIENDLY” OR “NAUGHTY” E-MAIL TO A TEENAGE PAGE IS NOT A SERIOUS MATTER WHEN COMPARED WITH NATIONAL SECURITY, IS IT?

    AFTER THEIR DEVISTATING LOSS, THE DEMOCRETANS WILL SNIPE AT ONE ANOTHER AFTER THE ELECTION, EXCHANGING BLAME FOR ONE MORE LOSS. WHY DIDN’T THEY RUN A VIGOROUS CAMPAIGN ON SUCH MATTERS AS HEALTH CARE, COLLEGE EDUCATION OR THE DECLINE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS? THE ANSWER IS THEY DID, BUT NO ONE HEARD THE DEFEATOCANTS. THE THREE SIMPLE WORDS “WAR ON TERROR” DROWN EVERYTHING ELSE OUT. WE KNEW THAT SIX MONTHS AGO. ALL ELSE WAS LIBOCANT WISHFUL THINKING.

  9. Bob from San Luis
    October 26, 2006 at 4:43 pm

    “WAR ON TERROR©” (©=The Republican Party; any misuse by thoughtful, intelligent persons not of the Republican Party is a misuse of the term and is prohibited.)

    Isn’t that what you are saying Jerry? Let’s see if the American voter buys into that again. And don’t pay any attention to the polls, including exit polls after voting, remember it’s who counts the votes that matters.

  10. Rich from Paso
    October 26, 2006 at 8:54 pm

    Bob likes to get his conspiracy theories out the same way Democrats in Chicago vote: early and often

  11. Low Crapp
    October 26, 2006 at 11:42 pm

    David, thanks for lobbing some nice fat slowballs to me. Got to go now, Nancy wants me to come by and wash her rolls royces

  12. JerryDinAZ
    October 27, 2006 at 5:25 am

    HERE ARE 10 GOOD REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE REPUBLICAN COME ELECTION DAY. YOU WON’T HEAR ABOUT THEM ON ABCCBSNBC NEWS.

    REASON #1. THE ECONOMY IS KICKING BUTT. IT IS ROBUST, VIBRANT, STRONG AND GROWING. IN THE 36 MONTHS SINCE THE BUSH TAX CUTS ENDED THE RECESSION THAT BEGAN UNDER PRESIDENT CLINTON, THE ECONOMY HAS EXPERIENCED ASTONISHING GROWTH. OVER THE FIRST HALF OF THIS YEAR, OUR ECONOMY GREW AT A STRONG 4.1 PERCENT ANNUAL RATE, FASTER THAN ANY OTHER MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED NATION. THIS STRONG ECONOMIC ACTIVITY HAS GENERATED HISTORIC REVENUE GROWTH THAT HAS SHRUNK THE DEFICIT. A CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO SPENDING RESTRAINT HAS ALSO CONTRIBUTED TO DEFICIT REDUCTION.

    REASON #2. UNEMPLOYMENT IS ALMOST NIL FOR A MAJOR ECONOMY, AND IS VERGING ON FULL EMPLOYMENT. RECENTLY, JOBLESS CLAIMS FELL TO THE LOWEST LEVEL IN 10 WEEKS. EMPLOYMENT INCREASED IN 48 STATES OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS ENDING IN AUGUST. OUR ECONOMY HAS NOW ADDED JOBS FOR 37 STRAIGHT MONTHS.

    REASON #3. THE DOW IS HITTING RECORD HIGHS. IN THE PAST FEW DAYS, THE DOW CLIMBED ABOVE 12,000 FOR THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY OF THE STOCK MARKET, THUS INCREASING THE VALUE OF COUNTLESS PENSION AND 401(K) THAT FUNDS MANY AMERICANS RELY ON FOR THEIR RETIREMENT YEARS.

    REASON #4. WAGES HAVE RISEN DRAMATICALLY. ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST, DEMAND FOR LABOR HELPED DRIVE WORKERS’ AVERAGE HOURLY WAGES, NOT INCLUDING THOSE OF MOST MANAGERS, UP TO $16.84 LAST MONTH — A 4 PERCENT INCREASE FROM SEPTEMBER 2005, THE FASTEST WAGE GROWTH IN MORE THAN FIVE YEARS. NOMINAL WAGE GROWTH HAS BEEN 4.1 PERCENT SO FAR THIS YEAR. THIS IS BETTER OR COMPARABLE TO ITS 1990S PEAKS. OVER THE FIRST HALF OF 2006, EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PER HOUR GREW AT A 6.3 PERCENT ANNUAL RATE ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION. REAL AFTER-TAX INCOME HAS RISEN A WHOPPING 15 PERCENT SINCE JANUARY 2001. REAL AFTER-TAX INCOME PER PERSON HAS RISEN BY 9 PERCENT SINCE JANUARY 2001.

    REASON #5. GAS PRICES HAVE PLUNGED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, THE PRICE OF GASOLINE HAS FALLEN TO ITS LOWEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN 10 MONTHS. THE FEDERAL ENERGY INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION SAID MONDAY THAT U.S. MOTORISTS PAID $2.21 A GALLON ON AVERAGE FOR REGULAR GRADE LAST WEEK, A DECREASE OF 1.8 CENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS WEEK. PUMP PRICES ARE NOW 40 CENTS LOWER THAN A YEAR AGO AND HAVE PLUMMETED BY MORE THAN 80 CENTS A GALLON SINCE THE START OF AUGUST. THE PREVIOUS 2006 LOW FOR GASOLINE WAS SET IN THE FIRST WEEK OF JANUARY, WHEN PUMP PRICES AVERAGED $2.238. IN THE WEEK ENDING DEC. 5, 2005, PRICES AVERAGED $2.19. TODAY, GASOLINE CAN BE FOUND FOR LESS THAN $2 A GALLON IN MANY PARTS OF THE COUNTRY.

    REASON #6. SINCE 9/11, NO TERRORIST ATTACKS HAVE OCCURRED ON U.S. SOIL. SINCE 9/11 THE U.S. HAS NOT BEEN ATTACKED BY TERRORISTS THANKS TO SUCH PROGRAMS AS THE ADMINISTRATION’S MONITORING OF COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN AL-QAIDA OPERATIVES OVERSEAS AND THEIR AGENTS IN THE U.S. AND THE MONITORING OF THE INTERNATIONAL MOVEMENT OF TERRORIST FUNDS — BOTH MEASURE BITTERLY OPPOSED BY DEMOCRATS.

    REASON #7. PRODUCTIVITY IS SURGING AND HAS GROWN BY A STRONG 2.5 PERCENT OVER THE PAST FOUR QUARTERS, WELL AHEAD OF THE AVERAGE PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH IN THE LAST 30 YEARS. STRONG PRODUCTIVITY GROWTH HELPS LEAD TO THE GROWTH OF THE GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT, HIGHER REAL WAGES, AND STRONGER CORPORATE PROFITS.

    REASON #8. THE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM IS WORKING. DESPITE DIRE PREDICTIONS THAT MOST SENIORS WOULD REFRAIN FROM SIGNING UP TO THE NEW MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION BENEFITS PROGRAM, FULLY 75 PERCENT OF ALL THOSE ON MEDICARE HAVE ENROLLED, AND THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY SAY THEY ARE HAPPY WITH THE PROGRAM.

    REASON #9. BUSH HAS KEPT HIS PROMISE OF NAMING CONSERVATIVE JUDGES. HE HAS NAMED TWO CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES TO THE SUPREME COURT, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN G. ROBERTS AND JUSTICE SAMUEL ALITO. IN ADDITION, HE HAS NAMED CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES WHO ARE DEVOTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AS IT IS WRITTEN AND NOT AS ACTIVIST LIBERAL JUDGES THINK IT MEANS. THE STRONG LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE OR MORE JUSTICES WILL RETIRE FROM THE SUPREME COURT MAKES IT MANDATORY FOR THE REPUBLICANS TO HOLD THE SENATE AND HAVE A CHANCE TO NAME NEW CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES.

    REASON #10. THE DEFICIT HAS BEEN CUT IN HALF THREE YEARS AHEAD OF THE PRESIDENT’S 2009 GOAL, WITH THE 2006 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET DEFICIT DOWN TO $248 BILLION. THE TAX CUTS HAVE STIMULATED THE ECONOMY AND ARE WORKING.

    IN CONTRAST TO THIS STUNNING RECORD OF REAL ACHIEVEMENT, THE DEMOCRATS OFFER NO REAL PLANS FOR THE WAY THEY WANT TO IMPROVE AMERICA OR MAKE US SAFER.
    INSTEAD, ISSUES LIKE THE MARK FOLEY SCANDAL HAVE BEEN USED TO SMOKESCREEN THEIR OWN LACK OF IDEAS IN A PUBLIC DEBATE.
    THE CHOICE VOTERS WILL MAKE IS WHETHER THEY WANT HIGHER TAXES AND LESS SECURITY BY SURRENDERING THE TOOLS USED TO COMBAT TERRORISM OR LOWER TAXES AND THE CONTINUED USE OF TOOLS LIKE THE PATRIOT ACT, TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE, TERRORIST INTERROGATIONS AND MISSILE DEFENSE.

    CONSIDER WHAT LEADING DEMOCRATS ARE PROMISING IF THEY GAIN CONTROL OF CONGRESS.
    1) REP. CHARLIE RANGEL, D-N.Y., WHO WOULD LEAD THE HOUSE TAX-WRITING COMMITTEE IF DEMOCRATS WIN IN NOVEMBER, SAID HE “CANNOT THINK OF ONE” TAX CUT HE WOULD RENEW. THAT AGENDA WOULD RESULT IN $2.4 TRILLION TAX INCREASE OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
    2) IF DEMOCRATS TAKE MAJORITIES IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE, THE AVERAGE FAMILY OF FOUR CAN EXPECT TO PAY AN AVERAGE OF $2,000 MORE IN TAXES.
    3) THE LEADER OF HOUSE DEMOCRATS AND THE WOMAN WHO WOULD BE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, REP. NANCY PELOSI, D-CALIF., SAID AFTER 9/11 THAT SHE “DOESN’T REALLY CONSIDER OURSELVES AT WAR … WE’RE IN A STRUGGLE AGAINST TERRORISM.”
    4) BY OPPOSING THE PATRIOT ACT, TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE MISSILE DEFENSE AND EVEN INTERROGATING THE MOST DANGEROUS TERRORISTS CAPTURED ON THE BATTLEFIELD, DEMOCRATS ARE IN DIRECT OPPOSITION TO THE VITAL TOOLS WE USE TO FIGHT TERRORISM.
    5) MANY DEMOCRATS, INCLUDING THE PROSPECTIVE HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS CHAIRMAN, FAVOR CUTTING OFF FUNDING FOR THE WAR IN IRAQ.
    6) DEMOCRATIC LEADERS HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY SEE INVESTIGATIONS AND IMPEACHMENT AS VIABLE OPTIONS SHOULD THEY TAKE CONTROL OF CONGRESS. THEY ARE THEREFORE PROMISING TO TIE THE HANDS OF THE PRESIDENT AND HIS ADMINISTRATION IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR.
    7) DEMOCRATS WANT TO REVERSE THE PRESIDENT’S ECONOMIC POLICIES THAT HAVE LED TO A HISTORICALLY STRONG ECONOMY.

    I COULD GO ON…BUT REALLY? ISN’T THAT ENOUGH?

    VOTE RED OR BE DEAD!

  13. REDLEG
    October 27, 2006 at 8:24 am

    IF, and I mean IF, the Democrats manage to make any gains in the upcomming election I hope they drop the impeachment nonsense. The country is really going through quite a bit right now, and the last thing we need political circus.

    If the Dems are serious about their commitment to the country and its citizens then it should focus on those matters that are of importance.

    What the hell purpose would impeaching president bush accomplish? NOTHING! Except maybe waste time that is best suited to other matters. How about a lack of confidence in our political leaders by our citizens and our troops overseas. How will the world see it. Will all the turmoil have an effect on our economy?

    So if your on “Impeach Bush” band wagon; do us a favor…get off. If the man is as bad as he is made out to be, then the citizens of this nation will confirm this by the way they vote in 2008.

    By the way who is the Alpha Charlie who is always screaming? His points are interesting but fallacious.

  14. rob in los osos
    October 27, 2006 at 8:32 pm

    redleg

    the ‘alpha charlie’ is Jerry Dagna. Just try to ignore him – he’s either off his meds or he’s acting.

  15. Rich from Paso
    October 27, 2006 at 10:14 pm

    Libs just love using that line about conservatives these days. So what was the liberal excuse for the Howard Dean scream on ’04? You all dumped him like yesterday’s garbage after that one.

  16. rob in los osos
    October 28, 2006 at 2:38 am

    Jerry deserved that – did you hear his lousy ‘defense’ of Rush’s statements?

    About Dean – Yep thats the truth. One misplaced squawky scream can ruin your whole career. Dean was not the right person to run – hell for that matter neither was Kerry. That scream made a lot of people think – do we want this guy with his finger on the button? It is hard at times to be a Dem. You know, I was actually registered, at different times, Libertarian, Green, and Independent. I just, sadly, felt that I had to vote in primaries, and there never was a viable third party candidate. You know, thats an interesting thing to ponder, and I put it out as a general question: Is there anyone from the ‘other’ party that you would vote for. I myself would vote for McCain, if he ran and if the dems put up Hillary.

  17. Rich from Paso
    October 28, 2006 at 3:45 am

    Me personally? I wouldn’t vote for any of the “other” parties becasue they all boil down to one issue candidates. None of teh “other” parties offer a complete enough platform to make me think they could govern effectively. That’s just my opinion.

    When did Jerry support Rush’s MJF statements? He must have done it on-air because he got it past me if it was here.

    You all should see how I think future Katrina-sized natural disasters should be handled on my blog What Right Looks Like. Log in and give me your input to help refine the solutions to today’s problems.

  18. JerryDinAZ
    October 28, 2006 at 6:18 am

    ROB?
    DIDN’T YOU SAY YOU WOULD NOT POST ON THIS BLOG ANY LONGER? AND THAT YOU WERE JUST GOING TO HUG SOME TREES OR SOMETHING…ARE YOU OK? OR JUST A TYPICAL LIBERAL THAT SAYS WHETEVER SEEMS RIGHT AT THE TIME AND THEN “FLIP FLOPS” LATER?
    TYPICAL LIB…THEY NEVER TELL THE TRUTH.
    THATS WHY THE CONSERVATIVE RIGHT WILL STAY IN POWER UNTIL THE DEMS GROW UP A BIT.

  19. Rich from Paso
    October 29, 2006 at 4:51 am

    Dave, I didn’t think you were too hard on that pinhead from Pismo. He was WAAAAYYY out of line trying to hold you to account for what you said about trees. It wasn’t like you said Rush Limbaugh was God or anything radically different like that and then denied you said it; you were talking about trees for Christ’s sake. You did the right thing by dumping him and I applauded you shutting that boob down the way you did. All in all, it was a real nice segment and good radio.

  20. Frank James
    October 29, 2006 at 5:19 am

    Originally posted: October 11, 2006
    Bush may be right on Iraqi-deaths study
    Posted by Frank James at 12:44 pm CDT

    President Bush was asked at this morning’s news conference about the new, scientifically done public-health study that estimates that there have been more than 655,000 Iraqi civilian deaths since the U.S. invasion.

    CNN reporter Suzanne Malveaux asked Bush if, in light of the study, he cared to amend the 30,000 figure he cited in December and if he considered the report “credible.”

    “No, I don’t consider it a credible report,” Bush said. “Neither do Gen. Casey and neither do Iraqi officials. I do know that a lot of innocent people have died and that troubles me, that grieves me… No question, it’s violent-This report is one, they put it out before it was-the methodology was pretty well discredited. I talk to people like Gen. Casey and of course the Iraqi government put out a statement talking about the report.”

    Malveaux followed up by asking Bush “If you stand by your figure of 30,000.”

    “I stand by the figure a lot of innocent people have lost their life,” Bush said. “600,000 or whatever they guessed at is not credible. Thank you.”

    The president was quick to dismiss the study, which gave off the appearance that he wasn’t approaching it with an open mind. And maybe he wasn’t.

    But he may be right to be skeptical. The president’s skepticism no doubt had more to do with political necessity than anything else. Going into the mid-term elections with his party low in the polls, he doesn’t want to give credence to anything that indicates the situation in Iraq could be far worse than he’s been saying.

    But skepticism is probably healthy whenever a study with such an eye-popping result comes out. It doesn’t mean the study is wrong. It just means more questions about how it was done need to be answered.

    I discussed this study with a colleague with a lot more experience than I do when it comes to evaluating such scientific studies. He only had a chance to quickly look at the study but still expressed healthy skepticism about this latest piece of research done by researchers at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health and public health experts in Iraq.

    For instance, while the researchers give as their best estimate for excess Iraqi deaths due to the war the number 654,965, they also say it falls within the range of 392,979 to 942,636 deaths. That’s a pretty large range.

    The study is a retrospective, backwards-looking one. Those are less reliable than prospective studies that select a sample of people, then follow them into the future, recording deaths as they happen.

    For their part, the researchers say they used well-tested statistical techniques that are actually used by the U.S. government, according to the Dr. Gilbert Burnham in a conference call he had with reporters this morning.

    Burnham, who led the study, is co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at Johns Hopkins University’s Bloomberg School of Public Health.

    “…Virtually all the information we have on developing countries on health status, on fertility issues, on HIV performance and risks and so forth, it all comes from the same methodology. So (these are) very standard methods. And I doubt anybody leaves a school of public health without knowing how to do this type of study.”

    The study does seem to have been carefully done and in the teeth of the difficulties of conducting such a nationwide survey in the turbulent country. The Iraqi researchers were medical doctors who at great personal risk went into the field to interview Iraqi families.

    Still there are a lot questions. I’ve put in a call to Johns Hopkins and hope to have answers soon.

    Again, though Bush may have dismissed the study for political reasons, maybe after all the questions are answered, Bush may have been right to cast doubt on the study’s credibilty. We just don’t know enough yet.

    (The posting was revised to correct an error. I wrote that the study didn’t mention a refusal rate. In fact, as some commenters pointed out, it does, on page 4 of the Lancet article. The refusal rate was 0.8 percent. Thanks to those who caught my mistake.)

  21. Mike Fox w/Steffie S. of CNN
    October 29, 2006 at 10:19 pm

    Here is where Mikael J. Fox admits he hs not even read or really know what is the cloning bill for Mo. constitutional funding for cloning.

    How sad he will tell lies for a cause 😦

    Stephanopoulos: In the ad now running in Missouri, Jim Caviezel speaks in Aramaic. It means, “You betray me with a kiss.” And his position, his point, is that actually even though down in Missouri they say the initiative is against cloning, it’s actually going to allow human cloning.

    Fox: Well, I don’t think that’s true. You know, I campaigned for Claire McCaskill. And so I have to qualify it by saying I’m not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I’ll agree with it in spirit, I don’t know, I— On full disclosure, I haven’t read it, and that’s why I didn’t put myself up for it distinctly.

    But I’ve made this point before, and I really am sincere in it, that anybody who’s prayed on this, and thought about it, and really considered it and can’t get their mind around or their heart around the idea of embryonic stem cell research, I’d go to war for your right to believe that. And you’re right to feel that. I respect it. I truly do.

    My point is, and our point as a community, is we have a very good and supportable conclusion that a vast majority of people in this country are in favor of science playing a leading role in making changes in the future and believe in embryonic stem cell research.

    So we’re just saying, know that we have prayed on it, too, and we have thought about it, and we are good people, and we are family people, and we are people that take this very seriously, and we’re as concerned as you are.

    And we’ve decided that we would like to take this step and to do it with caution and to do it with oversight and to do it with the strictest adherence to ethics and all of the principles this country stands for.

    But, allow us to do that without infusing the conversation with inflammatory rhetoric and name-calling and fear-mongering. It doesn’t help.

    Stephanopoulos: Do you think there’s any way to finally find common ground with people who do believe in the end that this is tampering with tiny lives?

    Fox: Well, again, the point has been made that these lives are going to be thrown away, anyway. They are marked for destruction — thousands of frozen embryos that are a byproduct of in vitro fertilization. We have routinely, before this conversation started on stem-cell research, we have for years thrown them away.

    And that’s the other thing, you know, this idea of snowflake babies: We’re in favor of that. The truth of the matter is that it is only going to account for a tiny fraction—

    Stephanopoulos: Those are the embryos that are adopted and then brought—

    Fox: Absolutely. Who would have a problem with that? That’s fantastic.

    But it will, in the end, account for only a tiny fraction of those eggs. And so our point is that the pro-life position is to use that — what up to this point is waste, of literal waste that is going to be thrown away — use it to save lives and to ensure lives for the future. I mean, they talk about unborn. Unborn kids are going to be born with diabetes. People are going to be dealing with a genetic predisposition to Alzheimer’s or to Parkinson’s or kids that are going to be injured, have spinal cord injury.

    That those kids may be born into a world that has the answers for that. That’s our position.

  22. Bob from San Luis
    October 31, 2006 at 8:12 am

    A Democratic Majority? Here is a link to a poll monitoring site showing lead for Democrats in the House races, and how close the Senate races are. The interesting part is how the Democrats have actually been increasing their lead over the last couple of weeks. Wednesday the 9th will be interesting….

  23. Rich from Paso
    November 1, 2006 at 5:47 pm

    Polls, polls, polls. All of these “likely voter” polls are crap compared to the actually voted polls that we will see on November 8th.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: